Skip to main content
Log in

Moral Intuitions versus Game Theory: A Response to Marcoux on Résumé Embellishing

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Marcoux argues that job candidates ought to embellish non-verifiable information on their résumés because it is the best way to coordinate collective action in the résumé ‚game’. I do not dispute his analysis of collective action; I look at the larger picture, which throws light on the role game theory might play in ethics. I conclude that game theory’s conclusions have nothing directly to do with ethics. Game theory suggests the means to certain ends, but the ethics of both the means and ends must be assessed separately before any ethical recommendation can␣be made. Marcoux makes several highly disputable assumptions in order to fit résumés into game theory; his analysis does not take into account the consequences that embellishing has beyond the submission and assessment of␣résumés; his argument depends on his claim that a résumé system in which everyone embellishes is attainable; and finally, his argument relies on an idealization of human␣motivation, rather than abstraction. I conclude that candidates should never embellish their résumés.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Butler, J.: [1726] 1983, Five Sermons, Preached at the Rolls Chapel and A Dissertation Upon the Nature of Virtue (Hackett Pub. Co., Indianapolis, IN).

  • Carr, Albert Z.: 1968, Harvard Business Review 46(January/February), 143–153.

  • Elster J. (1983) Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank Robert H. (2004) What Price the Moral High Ground? Ethical Dilemmas in Competitive Environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green R. (1990) When is “Everyone’s Doing It” a Moral Justification?. Business Ethics Quarterly 1:75–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson B. (2001) Economics as Moral Science. Springer, Berlin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutcheson, F. [1728] 1742, An Essay on the Nature and Conduct of the Passions and Affections: With Illustrations on the Moral Sense (A Ward, London).

  • Little I. M. D. (1958) A Critique of Welfare Economics, 2nd ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge Jane J. (1990) Beyond Self-interest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoux Alexei M. (2006) A Counterintuitive Argument for Résumé Embellishing. Journal of Business Ethics 63:183–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marwell G., Ames R. (1981) Economists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else?. Journal of Public Economics 15:295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill J. S. [1833] 1980, Mill on Bentham and Coleridge (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Eng.; New York).

  • O’Neill O. (1996) Towards Justice and Virtue: A Constructive Account of Practical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavis Timothy M., Tavis Lee A. (2004) The Person, the Market, and the Community. In: Hodgson B. (eds) The Invisible Hand and the Common Good. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Douglas Bishop.

Additional information

John Douglas Bishop is a Professor in the Business Administration Program at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario. His research interests include both business ethics and ethics and capitalism. He is the editor of Ethics and Capitalism, University of Toronto Press, 2000.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bishop, J.D. Moral Intuitions versus Game Theory: A Response to Marcoux on Résumé Embellishing. J Bus Ethics 67, 181–189 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9022-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9022-8

Keywords

Navigation